CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ZALDIVAR-PEREZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 204739, 2019

ZALDIVAR-PEREZ VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,

G.R. No. 204739, 2019

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

The right to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.

 

 

FACTS

A Complaint-Affidavit dated April 28, 2006 for Unlawful Appointment. Tamboong alleged that petitioner Perez appointed Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza (Fortaleza) on January 30, 2006 as the Provincial Legal Officer of the province despite knowing that he did not meet the minimum requirement of five (5) years in the practice of law under Section 481, Article XI, Title V of the Local Government Code of 1991.

 

From the foregoing facts, approximately six years had elapsed from May 17, 2006, the time when the complaint-affidavit was filed before the OPP-Antique, until May 24, 2012, when the case was filed before the Sandiganbayan. The OPP-Antique too almost three years from the filing of the Complaint-Affidavit within which to conclude the preliminary investigation and to arrive at its August 6, 2009 Resolution, while it took the OMB for Visayas more than three years from the date the August 6, 2009 Resolution was endorsed to it up to the time the Review Resolution was finalized on September 8, 2011 and approved by Ombudsman Carpio-Morales on September 26, 2011. Still, it took he Ombudsman another eight months from the approval of the September 8, 2011 Review of the August 6, 2009 Resolution up to the filing of the complaint before the Sandiganbayan on May 24, 2012.

 

The prosecution offered no explanation regarding the delay in conducting the preliminary investigation and in its findings indicting petitioner Perez of the offense charged.

 

 

ISSUE

Whether the right of Perez to speedy disposition of her case was violated hence the case must be dismissed.

 

RULING

Yes.

The court ruled that the right to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. Valid reasons for the delay identified and accepted by the Supreme Court (SC) include, but are not limited to: (1) extraordinary complications such as the degree of difficulty of the questions involved, the number of persons charged, the various pleadings filed, and the voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence on record; and (2) acts attributable to the respondents.

 

Here, the court ruled that there is no doubt that petitioner Perez was prejudiced by the inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. The charge of Unlawful Appointment based on the ground that the appointee does not possess the minimum requirement for the said position is a simple case and does not involve a complicated and complex issue that would require the painstaking scrutiny and perusal of the Ombudsman that would warrant the protracted delay. It bears stressing that this case involved only petitioner Perez and the only pleading that she filed was her Counter-Affidavit and nothing else. The lapse of six years before the filing of the Information with the Sandiganbayan placed her in a situation of uncertainty. This protracted period of uncertainty over her case caused her anxiety, suspicion and even hostility. To perpetuate a violation of this right by the lengthy and unreasonable delay would result to petitioner Perez’s inability to adequately prepare for her case and would create a situation where the defense witnesses were unable to recall accurately the events of the distant past, leading to the impairment of petitioner Perez’s possible defenses.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147